Thursday, June 06, 2013

Crooked Kathleen

Kate Randall (WSWS) has an important story on ObamaCare:With the full implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act (ACA) less than seven months away, mounting evidence
demonstrates that the health care reform signed into law by President
Barack Obama in 2010 will result in deep cutbacks in medical care, while
raising costs for the vast majority of ordinary Americans.At the same time, millions of the uninsured who were promised health
coverage will be left out in the cold altogether. While working families
and the poor face an uncertain future as far as their health care is
concerned, private insurance companies are gearing up for steep
increases in premiums as the medical benefits provided under their
policies shrink.

Obamacare was never about helping people. It was about Barack paying back the insurance industry for all their contributions to his campaign.

Medicare for all is not a difficult concept.

But it's not what we get, heaven forbid we be an advanced western country.

Meanwhile the crooked Kathleen Sebelius is back to her shady ways. You may remember last year our Health and Human Services Secretary got in trouble for doing campaign events on the taxpayer dime. Right now, she's being criticized for dialing for dollars, calling around to private groups and asking them to make donations.

How is that part of her job?

She's a crook, hiding her e-mail correspondence by using a fake account. She belongs in prison.

She's not the only crook in the administration that does.

At today's White House press briefing, posted at the White House website, you'll find this exchange:

Q And, Jay, there is a new poll out from NBC that says 58 percent of
Americans still think that the country is in recession. Why do you
think so many Americans are not feeling some of the progress that the
White House has described in terms of the housing market, jobs and other
things?

MR. CARNEY: Because we still have so much work to do.

Jay Carney belongs in prison as well. Five years is more than enough time to turn the economy around.

Wednesday, June 5, 2013. Chaos and violence continue, "the world has
forgotten us" an Iraqi refugee in Jordan declares as more Iraqis begin
fleeing to Jordan, Sahar Issa explains fake checkpoints and an
unresponsive government, we return to the Senate Armed Services
Committee hearing on assault and rape, the VA issues a burn pits notice
in the Federal Registry, and a PSA for Bradley Manning goes all wrong.

Sahar Issa: You will find explosions are targeting mosques and they
are targeting commercial areas. In the neighborhoods where people live,
there is fear, there is tension. At the checkpoints? There are fake
checkpoints where they ask for your name and your i.d. To tell you the
truth, the situation is really quite fearful on the streets. Marco Werman: So you believe this time the government of Iraq is
part of the problem? I mean, it was democratically elected. Are the
people of Iraq unable to voice their grievances right now?Sahar Issa: Yes, the situation right now is that the government,
since December, has taken -- how do you say? The face? We call it an
iron face. You don't see the features, you don't see the expression on
the face -- towards the protests that are taking place in the country.
Since December, a great many Sunnis in the western provinces, have risen
in order to say that there is a double standard in dealing with many
situations that are sectarian in the way that it is being dealt with.
And since that time, the government has taken a stance that 'I do not
hear, I do not see, I do not speak.' It is like a glancing over all of
these things. And it is staying in place. It is not giving it serious
attention that it needs to give. And since that time, until this very
time, every Friday -- because we have Friday prayers that take place at
the mosques -- every Friday has been a 'terror Friday.' We just don't
know what is going to happen. Sunni enclaves become like camps,
deployment of Army, deployment of Special Forces, deployment of all
military kinds.Marco Werman: Terror Friday? That's pretty ominous.Sahar Issa: Yes, yes. I have a son who is going to take his final
exams on Saturday and I am terrified. Should I let him go or not?

As Iraq falls apart, you'd think the news media would actually be more
interested. Instead, CNN just shuttered their Baghdad bureau. No one
even commented on it it except in US terms (myself included) but we need
to point that out. CNN isn't just a US channel. It's an international
channel. It has anchors throughout the world. Most of the Iraq video
reports in the last two years, for example, have aired on CNN World and
not on the US CNN. So when CNN closed down the Baghdad bureau that
wasn't just closing down US access to Iraq coverage, it was closing down
the whole world (yes, stringers remain for 'breaking news' -- but if
what's taking place in Iraq right now doesn't qualify as breaking news
requiring a bureau, I'm not sure what does.) McClatchy could have kept
their Iraq blogs active, could have kept their staff. Didn't want to.
Didn't see the need. But damned if they don't clutch at Iraq anytime
they need to point to something with pride.

"The world has forgotten us. The west has forgotten us. Even the
UNHCR, they have forgotten us," an Iraqi refugee tells the BBC. The
violence is having many effects including restarting the flow of
external refugees. Matthew Woodcraft (BBC World Service -- link is audio) reports on this development and I've deleted the names of two Iraqi males. Excerpt.Matthew Woodcraft: ____ explained how he was new to Amman having
decided to make the move from his home city of Baghdad to seek refuge in
Jordan just a few weeks ago. "Iraq, she is beautiful," ____ said before
exhaling a plume of smoke as he rolled the dice across the board.
"Well, she was," he added, "but we cannot be there anymore. The
religions, it's dangerous. More men arrived sounding lively, with shouts
of "Salam alaikum, habibi" -- "hello, my good man" -- and handshakes
all around. Amman is witnessing a new wave of Iraqi refugees as the
almost daily bombings across Iraq become ever more bloody. As the
click-clack of dice on wood continued, I spoke with **** one of the
organizers of the backgammon evening, in a room away from the other
men. I asked him about the new influx of Iraqis. This initially
jocular man grew serious as he explained, "There are many who are still
coming and they cannot work. They live hand to mouth," he said. going
on to tell me how the new arrivals are fleeing with little and in
desperate need of help.

In Jordan, Iraqi refugees cannot legally work. I'm not comfortable
identifying by name refugees when it could prevent employment. Were
this a brief story, it would be one thing. But the Iraqi refugees who
fled to Jordan during the ethnic cleansing that began in 2006 have
largely not returned. That's also true in Syria where you're far more
likely to find Iraqi Kurds returning than Iraqi Sunni or Shia.

Tom Rogan (The Atlantic) offers his take on Iraq:
Put simply, the ISI [Islamic State of Iraq]'s reconstitution is a symptom of Iraq's deeper
political dysfunction. In the 2010 parliamentary elections, (the Sunni
supported) Iraqi
National Movement of Iyad Allawi won
a plurality
of seats. But Iraq's current Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, didn't
accept the outcome. Following in a troubling tradition of
authoritarianism, he was
unwilling to give up power. Instead, Maliki promised to form a unity
government with Allawi. The idea was that this co-operation would cool
tensions and
build trust. It hasn't happened. In fact, the opposite has
occurred; we've seen renewed arguments over oil sharing, serious
disagreements over regional sovereignty, and allegations of high level political harassment. For Maliki it seems, after years of
oppression under Saddam Hussein, the incentive for reconciliation isn't an abiding concern.
Then, in April, the crisis literally exploded. First, the Iraqi Government launched a bloody attack against a Sunni protest camp. Next, in a move that reeked of
sectarian persecution, Maliki suspended the licenses of a number of
media outlets, including Al Jazeera. On May 17, more than 75 Sunnis were killed
in various terrorist massacres. Collectively, these
actions have fed into a growing groundswell of sectarian anger.
Trust is perishing and in the fear, extremists have found new roots of
sympathy. With
unrelenting ISI attacks, growing government crackdowns and resurgent
Shia hardliners, the storm clouds of civil war are
gathering.

Deng Shasha (Xinhua) reports:Hundreds of thousands of Shiite pilgrims on Wednesday
gathered at the climax of a religious ritual at the holy golden-domed
shrine in northern the Iraqi capital of Baghdad amid tightened security
measures.Every year, on the very date of the Islamic calendar, the Shiites
gather at the mausoleum of Imam Musa al-Kadhim in Baghdad' s northern
district of Kadhmiyah to commemorate the death of the seventh of the
most revered 12 Shiite Imams.During the past few days, large crowds of pilgrims from Iraqi cities
and some Muslim countries flocked to the mausoleum in Kadhmiyah to
observe the annual commemoration of the Imam's death.

AFP adds, "Mourners
were to carry to the shrine a symbolic coffin, marking the 799 AD death
of Imam Musa Kadhim, the seventh of 12 revered imams, who is said to
have been poisoned."

Today National Iraqi News Agency reports:
The MP, of the Iraqiya coalition, Hamid al-Mutlaq criticized
statements made by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden on the division of Iraq
into three regions also criticized the silence of the government and
the Iraqi politicians towards this project, which described dangerous
and threaten the unity of Iraq, land and people.
He told the National Iraqi News / NINA / on Wednesday 5, June: "The
project of occupying Iraq in 2003 is a destructive and divisive project
that Iraqi people rejected it uniformly but there are still some of
those in power who cooperate with the occupation through secret treaty
did not announce to the Iraqi people, including Biden's project. "

It takes
an al-Mutlaq to much everything up. Those were statements that could
have been made before yesterday. Forever behind the times. From yesterday's snapshot:

Alsumaria reports
that the US Embassy in Iraq denied today media reports that Biden was
overseeing Iraq being split into three sections. The embassy stated
that Biden spoke to the three leaders only in attempt to help keep a
political dialogue alive between the various blocs. On his phone calls,
he did not raise the issue of dividing Iraq but instead stressed the
need for all participants to work together to find some resolution to
the crises confronting Iraq.

We'll
probably have to note that a few times more. Of course, if the White
House would issue a statement already, it would stop all the nasty talk
about Vice President Joe Biden in Iraq (where he's been called "The
Godfather of the Divide," "Satanic" and "The Ugly Terrorist" -- and that
just the last two weeks).

Turning to the United States . . .

Nancy Parrish: Protect Our Defenders is a
human rights
organization that works with victims of military
sexual assault,
providing
support services and advocating
for military ju
stice
reform. Our
experience working directly with
sexual assault survivors
, active duty and veteran,
as well
as our work educating the public and policy makers on this
issue
have
left us critically
aware of the shortfalls within the
current
system and the need to implement fundamental
reforms.
The argument
currently
circulating
that
sexual assault reform
is an old
problem,
predominantly solved
through
recent changes
in the law,
is simply not correct.
It is well understood that the numbers are going up not down.
We regularly receive desperate pleas from current victims of sexual assault,
who are having
their attempts to report thwarted, mishandled, or swept under the rug.
Increasingly we intervene, hiring
lawyers, to block retaliation and reverse errant medical
diagnoses. We frequently hear from
highly rated service members, who soon after they
report,
suffer persecution, are isolated in psych
wards
with
wrongful
diagnoses,
or
become
targets
of
investigations. Soon
after,
they are
frequently being
forced out of the service.
One
soldier
explained, quote: "I got raped by this bastard.
When I tried to talk to my
squad leader I got shut down and reminded that he [the rapist] was a Senior NCO.
I
waited and spoke with my platoon SFC, Sgt. First Class, and Lt., [
And,
they told my
perpetrator.]
Then,
I got told if I say another word to anyone,
I was going to be charged
with adultery. I was sent back to the states. I told my squad leader
and the next
thing I get told they are chaptering me on an adjustment disorder. I am one of the
'Unreported statistics' but not without trying. He is free and able to do it again as long as
he wears the Uniform.
The
Uniform represents
a Protective Shield if you're a rapist with
rank."
A
mother
reported
to us, quote: "Our daughter's career and life nearly ended on base
4/7/12, days before her tech training was to begin. That
day other service member(s)
her cigarettes laced with embalming fluid and raped her. She was locked up, prescribed
medications, denied repeated requests for expedited transfer.
Only weeks later,
Command initiated an Article 15 letter of reprimand and proceeded
to
discharge
her with
an errant medical diagnosis. This was later overturned
with outside legal assistance. She
endured months of anguish, hospitalizations, humiliation, punishment --
having to clean
and work in the area where she was assaulted a second time
raped, sodomized,
threatened reporting further
,
and forced to live in close proximity to her perpetrators.
A
letter
is
attached
the
to Committee from
the
mother.
Last year, an officer of
18 years
, still on active duty
,
said:
I was deployed overseas. The first
advice you get when you get there: Always carry a knife. Even in the daylight, almost
every woman carried a knife. Not for battle against the Taliban, but to cut the person who
tries to rape her. I was drugged and raped. If you report people are going to ostracize
you. If you report rape you
are done. Check their crime records here, and [see] how
many IG complaints were pushed under the rug. Why? Because, the IG office is also a
deployment position. They don't want to deal with big issues, because it takes too long to
investigate."
USAF Lt Adam Cohen is on active duty.
He
deployed three times for Operation Enduring
Freedom,
flying over
40 combat missions in Afghanistan.
Lt Cohen is an example of a failed system, a system that permits the weakest within it to
suffer manipulation and
castigation for having the temerity to come forth with an
allegation of sexual assault.
According to Lt Cohen, for years he suffered blackmail,
at the
hands of his
assailant and his assailant's friends
,
designed to keep him from coming
forward with his allegation.
When he finally
came
forward, he was initially ignored
by Air
Force law enforcement.
Pressing his claim further, he was punished by investigators and
manipulated into providing evidence that was meant not to hold his assailant accountable,
but rather to prosecute him.
Through the actions of the Air Force, Lt Cohen's
alleged
assailant still on active duty is statutorily barred from prosecution,
while Lt
Cohen
remains the subject of a constitutionally suspect prosecution.
He has been retaliated
against, attacked
,
and denied an expedited transfer. Upon learning the expedited transfer
was denied, SVC Major Bellflower asked the commander to provide a safety plan.
If we are
to make any headway in curbing sexual assault in the military, we must act to
protect those
that come forward
,
by ensuring that the system does not punish them for doing so.

Nancy Parrish was speaking at yesterday's Senate Armed Services
Committee hearing on assault and rape in the ranks of the military. We
covered the first panel -- made up of the top military brass -- in yesterday's snapshot, Kat covered it in "Senator Kirsten Gillibrand didn't come to play," Wally covered it in "Senator Bill Nelson sets the tone " and Ava covered it in "Saxby Chambliss' gross stupidity."
Kat's Gillibrand was especially important because (as Kat notes) I
missed her. It was hot in the room, it was crowded and I had to step
away to hurl. Senator Gillibrand is leading the charge to remove an
ability from the command that they don't want removed. Her bill is
opposed not just by Republicans on the Committee like Ranking Member
James Inahofe but also by Democrat and Committee Chair Car Levin. Wally
writes about the way the first panel -- chiefly Gen Martin Dempsy
(Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), Gen Ray Odierno
(Chief of Staff of the Army), Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert (Chief of
Naval Operations), Gen James Amos (Commandant of the Marine Corps), Gen
Mark Welsh (Chief of Staff of the Air Force) and Admiral Robert Papp Jr.
(Commandant of the Coast Guard) -- showed deference to the male
senators but were openly combative towards female senators (until
Senator Bill Nelson came down hard -- he spoke slowly, firmly and loudly
and seemed to get attention in doing so). Ava points out that Senator
Chambliss just doesn't get it. The 69-year-old idiot thinks rape is the
result of just being horny. (He also thinks women hit their sexual
peak in young adult hood -- as males do -- which just demonstrates how
out of touch with science he is.) At The New Yorker today, Andy Borowitz mocks Chambliss' remarks.

The hearing had three panels. Today, we're going to note some exchanges
from the third panel which was composed of Parish, retired Capt Anu
Bhagwati who is executive director of Service Women's Action Network,
retired Maj Gen John D. Altenburg Jr. (Chair of the American Bar
Association Standing Committee on Armed Forces Law) and retired Col
Lawrence J. Morris (General Counsel, Catholic University).

SWAN's is endorsing proposed bills before the Congress. Anu Bhagwati
noted that in her opening remarks and noted that all the bills they were
supportive of were in her written statement submitted for the record.
We'll note that section of Bhagwati's written statement:Mr. Chairman, several bills related to military sexual violence have been introduced in recent weeks by
members of this Committee and other congressional champions for reform. Some bills address the need
to improve victim services, some
address the critical need for UCMJ reform, and others are focused on
the impact that sexual assault and sexual harassment have on veterans. The majority of these are
bipartisan and bicameral, which speaks to the collective approach required to see real change happen. I
would like to highlight these bills and urge the committee to give them serious consideration as it moves
forward with this year’s Defense Authorization Act: S. 538 which modifies the authority of commanders under Article 60. S. 548 the Military Sexual Assault Prevention Act which requires retention of all sexual assault reports,
restricted and unrestricted for 50 years, and requires
substantiated complaints of sexual-related offenses
be placed in the perpetrator's personnel record.
S. 871 the Combating Military Sexual Assault Act which would require the Air Force's special victims
counsel program be implemented DOD-wide, prohibit
sexual acts and contact between instructors and
trainees, provide enhanced
oversight responsibilities to the SAPRO
offices and make SARCs available to
all National Guard troops. S. 967 the Military Justice Improvement Act, a critical
bill that professionalizes the military justice system
by ensuring that trained, professional, impartial prosecutors control the keys to the courthouse for felony-
level crimes while still allowing commanders to maintain
judicial authority over crimes that are unique to
the military and requiring more expeditious and localized justice to ensure good order and discipline. S. 992 which would require SAPR personnel
billets to be nominative positions. S. 1032 the BE SAFE Act that would mandate dismissal or
dishonorable discharge
of those convicted for
specific sex crimes, remove the 5 year statute of
limitations on sexual assault cases and allow for
consideration for accused transfer from the unit. S. 1041 the Military Crimes Victim Act that extends
crime victims’ rights to offenses under the UCMJ.
S. 1050 the Coast Guard STRONG Act that requires
the Coast Guard to implement sexual assault
prevention and response reforms. S. 1081, the Military Whistle Blowers Enhancement Act which would help protect victims from retaliation
and reprisal by expanding protections under the existing Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act for
federal workers, require timely IG investigations,
ensure discipline for those who retaliate and improve
corrective relief for victims. Unless and until we professionalize the military justice system, and afford service members at least the
same access to legal redress that civilian victims have,
including critical access to civil suits, we will not
change this culture. Military perpetrators will continue
to be serial predators, taking advantage of a broken
system to prey on victims, and tens
of thousands of victims of rape,
assault, and harassment will continue
to suck up their pain, trauma, shame and humiliation, year after year, and decade after decade, with no
hope for justice.

The bill Senator Gillibrand is sponsoring is S. 967. Again:

S. 967 the Military Justice Improvement Act, a critical
bill that professionalizes the military justice system
by ensuring that trained, professional, impartial prosecutors control the keys to the courthouse for felony-
level crimes while still allowing commanders to maintain
judicial authority over crimes that are unique to
the military and requiring more expeditious and localized justice to ensure good order and discipline.

We note it specifically above because in the excerpt below, Committee
Chair Carl Levin will spend a great deal of time on Gillibrand's bill.

Chair Carl Levin: First is the question of retaliation. What we
know, long before today's hearing -- but emphasized at today's hearing
-- is that most of the women who do not report -- or most of the troops
who do not report -- men or women -- do not do so because, uhm, they are
afraid of retaliation. A huge percentage are much afraid of a -- of a
humiliation or embarrassment. But it's the retaliation issue we want to
put some focus on or at least I want -- I think all of us want -- to
put some focus on. The question is, uhm, whether or not -- and I think
Ms. Bhagwati, you made reference to one of the bills here, Senator
Gillibrand's bill which would require that serious offenses be sent to a
new disposition authority, outside the chain of command for
determination of whether or not the allegations should be prosecuted at a
general or a special court-martial. And my question is, would do that,
how-how would doing that stop retaliation? That's the question I guess
I'll ask of you, Ms. Bhagwati. Anu Bhagwati: The first thing it will do is restore faith and trust
in the system. Right now, victims don't have any of that. They've lost
all hope in the military justice system unfortunately. Retaliation
happens in many respects. We see on a day-to-day basis, our callers --
both service members and veterans who have recently been discharged --
have been punished with anything from personal retaliation from
roommates and family members to professional retaliation by their chain
of command from the lowest levels to the highest levels -- platoon
sergeants all the way up the chain. They are also retaliated in more
insidious ways. They're given false diagnoses -- mental health
diagnoses like personality disorders which bar them from service, which
force them to be discharged, which ban them from getting VA services, VA
benefits. So it's comprehensive retaliation.Chair Carl Levin: Mr. Altenburg, let me ask you a question about the
investigative process. Uh, uhm, Col King said that the investigation in
the Marines -- and I think this is generally true -- is handled by
professional investigators. Is that your understanding?John D. Altenburg: That's my understanding. And that's a recent change -- I mean in the last three years, I think.Chair Carl Levin: Now have you read -- have you read the bill Senator Gillibrand's bill?John D. Altenburg: I have.Chair Carl Levin: If there were a new disposition authority created,
independent of the chain of command, that would make a determination of
whether allegations should be prosecuted at a court-martial or not?
Would that effect the investigation processes?John D. Altenburg: I don't think it would necessarily. They left the
investigation with the CID in the Army, the CIS in the other service
and the OSI and they'd do their investigation and then it would get
passed, I guess, to this court-martial command -- is what it was called
fifty years ago, when people tried to do that.Chair Carl Levin: Now in terms of -- Who would -- Who would make the
decision as you read the bill? Who would make the determination as to
whether an offense meets the threshold of a serious offense that would
have to be referred to the new disposition authority? Who would make
that determination?John D. Altenburg: Excuse me, sir, I assume a lawyer would. Uhm, just as now, lawyers make -- not command d --Chair Carl Levin: Lawyer? Which lawyer where?John D. Altenburg: A prosecutor.Chair Carl Levin: In that same independent office? Or -- I mean
that's the threshold question of whether or not there's evidence of a
serious offense or not so that new independent approach would be
triggered. Who would make that, as you read the bill?John D. Altenburg: As I read the bill, a lawyer in the staff Judge Advocate would make that call -- as I read the bill. Chair Carl Levin: Alright.John D. Altenburg: Senator Levin, if you please, Chair Carl Levin: Does anyone else have a -- Yeah, go on. Go on.John D. Altenburg: I beg your indulgence in making a couple of
comments -- one related to retaliation, the other regarding
investigations. Investigations have now become mandatorily done by the
professional investigation services. That's a change that was a
response to this problem. And second, with regards to retaliation, I
think it's even more complex and subtle than Ms. Bhagwati talks about. I
agree with everything that she said, that she's experienced, but it's
so subtle that it can just be soldiers attending an investigative
hearing and glowering at the victim to make her feel uncomfortable.Chair Carl Levin: Do you have any suggestions as to how we can get to the peer pressure type of retaliation?John D. Altenburg: I think the only way to get to that is through the
command, is through the leadership. They have to seize this issue.
They have to understand the cultural dimensions of it, realize how
unique the military is in terms of the vulnerabilities of the victim
and-and the opportunity for this predator mentality that is like a wolf
around a pack of sheep that seeks out different types of people and
tests them and probes them and then finally decides to strike when
they're one-on-one -- I mean whether they do it subliminally or whether
they do it with malice of forethought, they are predators to the nth
degree. And many of them, we're finding from studies are repeat
offenders and they're serial offenders. And some of the things that
have been suggested to keep people from coming in the military that have
that kind of background will help solve this. But that mentality and
that culture is what the leaders will have to attack. The same way they
attacked racism in the seventies and the eighties. And there were
racist Lt. Colonels and Colonels and they got discovered, they got out.
You couldn't cope, you couldn't deal without modifying your behavior or
getting out. And we've done that with several other social issues. It
takes leadership. And it doesn't mean that all the leaders are going
to be the good people and the ones that get it but that's how will
effect change in this culture.

[. . .]

Anu Bhagwati: Senator Reed, I think, if you're suggesting somehow
that the military can create a culture of rape or that there's
something --Senator Jack Reed: No, I'm not.Anu Bhagwati: Good because I would disagree with that, that the
military creates rapists. I think, however, we still condone sexual
violence in the day-to-day which is different -- and that we still
mistreat women. And I have not met a woman in the military yet who has
not experienced some form of discrimination or harassment. When that is
sort of the average of a woman in the military, a culture of harassment
is created and sexual predators will thrive in that culture. These
serial predators that are entering the ranks, they're hitting a target
rich environment. They really are. I think, uh, until we -- until we
create systems and policies, until we tighten the military justice
system, until we potentially open up new forms of redress like civil
suits to service members -- I think we really have to think outside the
box here -- we're not going to change that culture. And the presence of
women at the highest echelons of leadership is really important. I
mean, we talked today about the presence of women in the Senate making a
difference. Well, the presence of women in the military also will make
a difference but only if there's a critical mass of women and right now
there aren't enough women at the top.

A veterans issue we cover often is burn pits and the need for a
registry. This was an issue that was championed by a number of members
of Congress who are no longer serving. Then-Senator Byron Dorgan, for
example, worked very hard to lay the groundwork on the issue. Dorgan
was Chair of the Senate
Democratic Policy Committee and they held many hearings on this very
serious issue. Click here to go to the hearing archives page.
Those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan were exposed to damaging (I will
say "deadly") fumes as the military required various things --
everything from car batteries to medicines to human waste -- to be
burned off in burn pits. Breathing disorders, cancers and much more
have been the result of the use of burn pits. Disclosure, I know
attorney Susan Burke. Yesterday, Patricia Kim (Navy Times) reported that a case that dismissed is now being appealed:

Alexandria, Va.,
lawyer Susan Burke and attorneys from the South Carolina firm Motley
& Rice filed an appeal Wednesday arguing that Maryland U.S. District
Court Judge Roger Titus’s decision in February to toss out 57
consolidated lawsuits filed against KBR, Inc., was “non-justifiable.”Titus
ruled Feb. 28 that as a government contractor working in a war zone,
KBR was entitled to the same legal protection and immunity as U.S. armed
forces operating in combat. He also argued that the court did not have
jurisdiction to rule on decisions made by another branch of government.But
in their appeal filed in the Fourth Circuit, the plaintiffs’ attorneys
said KBR often did not follow military directives while operating burn
pits in Iraq and Afghanistan, effectively negating any “sovereign
immunity” the company may have had.

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed
collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish
notice in the Federal Register concerning each
proposed collection of information, including each proposed new
collection, and allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments for information needed to
ascertain and monitor the health effects of the exposure of members of
the Armed Forces to toxic airborne chemicals and fumes caused by open
burn pits.

Submit written comments on the collection of information through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at www.Regulations.gov;
or to Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Veterans Health Administration (10B4),
Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20420 or email: cynthia.harvey-pryor@va.gov.
Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-NEW, Open Burn Pit Registry
Airborne Hazard Self-Assessment Questionnaire,” in any correspondence.
During the comment period, comments may be viewed online through FDMS.

Lastly, Old Man Ellsberg. Daniel Ellsberg came to national attention
over forty years ago when he leaked The Pentagon Papers (finally) to the
press. Today he uses his fame sometimes to help political prisoner
Bradley Manning. "I'm sure that President Obama would have sought a
life sentence in my case," he tells Timothy B. Lee (Washington Post). From the interview:Daniel Ellsberg: That may actually have the effect of waking people up to the fact
that, for example, Attorney General Holder has been violating the
Constitution steadily, and that he should be fired. But fired for what?
For doing what had the approval of the president.Holder should be fired for a whole series of actions culminating in
this subpoena for James Rosen’s cellphone records. I think that would be
the first step of resistance in the right direction, of rolling back
Obama’s campaign against journalism, freedom of the press in national
security.

TL: Is government surveillance of journalists more alarming than prosecution of leakers?

DE: Absolutely, but the two go together a little more than might be
obvious. First of all, there’s no question that President Obama is
conducting an unprecedented campaign against unauthorized disclosure.
The government had used the Espionage Act against leaks only three times
before his administration. He’s used it six times.
He’s doing his best to assure that sources in the government will have
reason to fear heavy prison sentences for informing the American public
in ways he doesn’t want.

Well thank goodness you were warning people in real time, Danny. Oh
wait, in 2012, just like in 2008, you were going around telling people
to vote for Barack Obama. Which means you're an unethical whore. If it
matters so much today, it damn well should have mattered last year.

Let's review: Monday April 5,
2010, WikiLeaks released US
military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were
killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and
Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7,
2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley
Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel
(Washington Post) reported in August 2010 that Manning had
been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The
first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring
classified information to his personal computer between November and May and
adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second
comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of
classified information." In March, 2011, David S. Cloud
(Los Angeles Times) reported
that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one
that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty
if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took place in December. At the start of
this year, there was an Article 32 hearing and, February 3rd, it was announced
that the government would be moving forward with a court-martial. Bradley has
yet to enter a plea. The court-martial was supposed to begin before the November 2012 election but it was
postponed until after the election so that Barack wouldn't have to run on a
record of his actual actions. Independent.ie adds, "A court martial is set to be held in June at Ford Meade in Maryland,
with supporters treating him as a hero, but opponents describing him as a
traitor." February 28th, Bradley told the court he was the whistle blower who provided WikiLeaks with the documents.

All the dates involving Bradley? They happened after Barack became
President of the United States. So if you whored whatever was left of
your name to churn out the vote for Barack, why the hell should anyone
listen to you? I didn't endorse anyone in 2012. There's no obligation
to endorse anyone. In America -- and maybe we need to stress this more
often -- you have the right to keep your mouth shut. You don't have to
offer an opinion on every damn thing.

Having endorsed Barack, you either pull that endorsement now (granted it
has no meaning other than symbolic at this point) or you really need to
just stop talking publicly. We pointed this out when Daniel was making
an ass out of himself in the presidential election.

We point it out now because he seems to think he's got some pull? No,
he doesn't. He whored what was left of his name. His influence is now
nothing but the extreme fringes. And, worse, now he's part of a ridiculous PSA for Bradley that plays like a hell week on The Merv Griffin Show.
That's the best they could get? Two tons of non-fun Leslie Cagan? Our
Closeted Communist is going to lead us? Into what? Political Closets,
one size fits all? Cagan is one of the biggest whores for Barack.
Cagan is notorious for that. She can't speak on any campus outside of
NYC because she is loathed, she is known for what she did. Cagan was
the main face for United for Peace and Justice and as much of a leader
as a Closeted Communist can be. She used UFPJ to attack Bully Boy Bush
and then she folded tent immediately after the 2008 election. We get
credit for labeling her a "Piss Queen" and not a "Peace Queen." That
was actually a group of students at UCLA who, when I mentioned the awful
Leslie, began chanting "Piss Queen." I was confused and thinking,
"This crowd is very pro-Leslie." Then I realized what they were saying.
Leslie's hated on campuses across America. The left youth will not be
fooled by her ever again.

The PSA is a lot like the infamous episode of The Merv Griffin Show where
Rick Springfield and Betty Buckley are on the couches and Merv brings
out The Village People in their brief new romantic phase. Maggie and
Oliver are Betty and Rick. Look, there's failed author Alice Walker,
who can't stop singing Barack's praises and refuses to call out Barack
even though he declared Bradley guilty, in public, back in April of 2011.
(No, he's not supposed to 'weigh in' about ongoing legal issues -- in
fact, that's the excuse Jay Carney hides behind when the press presses
him on the Justice Dept spying of the press.) Alice Walker, no longer
at a real publishing house, unable to move books in decades, quite the
comedown for an author who, as late as the 90s, still had a career. A
woman now more famous for refusing to see her grandchild or speak to her
only daughter. That's someone to get people excited? Oh, look,
there's the failed everything who thought he could insult Keanu Reeves
and also have a film career. Well, kind of like his music career, it
didn't work out that way.

Speaking of music careers, there's Tom Morello which would really be
something a decade or so ago. I don't want to put too much on this
point because we ignored it here but you don't applaud someone's choice
to kill themselves. You don't. You might respect it, but you don't
applaud it. We ignored it because I felt the person was being used. I
didn't feel the person wanted to take his own life. And it turns out,
he didn't. But it's a real shame that people around like Tom were more
interested in his taking his own life for a political reason than they
were in his continuing to live. I really think after that, Tom needs to
step away from the spotlight -- unless of course Tom plans to take his
own life. He could egg on a veteran to do that, go around granting
interviews about it, creating hysteria around it. Well, okay, Tommy,
why don't you take your life? Better idea, why don't you stay away from
that veteran from now on? You've done more than enough damage. (Ann did write about this at her site.)

And those are some of the reasons the PSA is a failure. But the main
reason it's a failure is Tom. At the end of the video Morello declares,
"If you know nothing about Bradley Manning, you should find out, and
then you should help me bust him out of jail."

I'm sure someone thought that was cute and funny. It's not. Breaking
someone out of a military jail? That would be a crime. And the case
already makes the public wary. So you're idea of drumming up support
for Bradley is to be 'provocative'? This isn't a concert stage, this is
real life and that little line at the end did not garner Bradley
support. It probably sent people on the fence running. There's a
reason people are on the fence. (I'm not on the fence, I support
Bradley and think all charges should be immediately dropped. I think
there should be protests outside the White House daily about this.)
What he's accused of doing is scary to a lot of people.

We saw this with Lynne Stewart.
Lynne is not a terrorist. She's an attorney who gave her time and
energy to defend people of all walks of life. She was The People's
Attorney. You can't call her that and get a conviction so you lie and
you call her a terrorist and then people who would otherwise support her
fear being associated with a 'terrorist' so they do nothing. Lynne's
only 'crime' was giving a press release to Reuters. But she's in
prison, most likely dying from cancer, and even now a lot of people
won't speak up for her. That is the climate. And it's not surprising
or really unique to this era. So to do a PSA about someone
controversial and instead of normalizing him -- which is what the entire
video, until the end, is supposed to be about it -- you start talking
about busting him out of jail? Brad's been painted as a terrorist and
this PSA will panic more people on the fence than pull them to support
Brad. Tom's an idiot and so is whoever okayed that line to be in the
video -- it completely undermines the intended message.